Should I drop out?

NoUserName- I was confused about the 0L thing too because of this post from the resaturant thread:

jeffislouieSr. Citizen****Posts: 198

View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Another Restaurant Fight« Reply #78 on: Today at 02:09:57 PM » Reply with quoteQuote from: RickLax.com on Today at 01:33:31 AMQuote from: jeffislouie on June 20, 2008, 12:36:12 PMHaving been a restaurant manager/GM for a decade, I am well qualified to weigh in on this matter.The manager was wrong for being accusatory and taking the server's side. There was no 'side' to take, and by being a prick about it, he left a bad taste in the customers mouth, jeopardizing the possibility of return business (which is the lifeblood of the restaurant industry).Bottom line - there wasn't a 'problem' that necessitated a manager stop by - the server was an idiot who made the situation worse by bringing over a bigger idiot. She could have pointed out the menu line that states a $2.50 charge for substitution. More troubling than that is the fact that the charge was added, but not itemized on the bill as a substitution charge.Additionally, having been a GM for so long, I am VERY familiar with food costing best practices. French Fries cost a few pennies more than baker potatos. Hard to believe, huh? Well, it's true. Fries are processed in a plant with a bunch of other ingredients, then flash frozen and shipped. Each step makes it slightly more expensive per serving that a baked potato. Ever wonder why some restaurants make their own fries? 2 reasons, they taste better and it's cheaper. This is something the consumer can see as well at the supermarket - go to the freezer section and take a look at the bag of fries. Check the cost per ounce. Then go to produce and check out the price of a raw potato.So charging a customer unnecessarily for actually lowering your cost of goods sold is a skeevy practice. Avoid restaurants that do this and if you don't catch it, like Rick, tell the manager that you think the policy is stupid and it just cost them a return customer.Finally, this was an untalented, very stupid manager. First of all, he appears to have been very aggressive about the matter, then pretends it's no big deal and that he'd be happy to take it off the bill. He could have done it right - tell the guest you will waive it today, then show them where it is on the menu, then tell them that you appreciate their business. Done. Customer happy, restaurant happy, and the server gets a tip.In this situation, I would tell the manager that I was reducing the servers tip because there was no reason to send over a manager over something she could have easily explained herself, then I would have tipped 10%. I also would tell the manager that if he is going to be aggressive about proving how right he is, he should have the balls to stick by what he says instead of being a prick to no end.And lay off Rick for posting blog entries here. He IS promoting his blog. Yes. Don't like it? Don't read his posts or, better yet, don't reply to them. Unless I'm doing something wrong, the only way to access a post on this site is to click on it. Each one is listed with the persons name too. What he does is hardly as upsetting as reading someone like Julie Fern speak like a caveman while being rude and calling people names like "shitbreath" because they disagree with her/him/it. Where are you people when that happens?

Thanks so much for sticking up for me. Unsurprisingly, I think you're right about pretty much everything here.

I got your back Rick!Don't listen to the haters. If they could have written a book that got published after graduating law school, you bet your behind they would have. But they can't, so instead they'll just bash on you because you did something they are incapable of.That's the internet for you! Haters and flames.....Frankly speaking, as a 0L, I found your site through LSD and am grateful for it, which is ironic because many slam you for posting here. I enjoy your writing and am happy for you that you got published (which is no easy feat, especially with law school in your life) and that you are getting ready for an attack on the bar exam. Good luck!

The way the bolded part is written makes it very easy to read as "Frankly, speaking as an 0L, I found..."

And, by the by, everybody ignore my LD suggestions. OP, I took a year between high school and college (long before the gap year became fashionable) and bagged it after two years of undergrad. I did that because I was exactly like you and StevePirates. I just didn't want to do it. Do yourself a favor, leave and go work for awhile. It took thirteen years for me to return to undergrad. I just graduated summa at UVA. When you want it, it makes all the difference.

My apologies...I meant something more along the the lines of "when I was a 0L", speaking to how I found Rick Lax's blog...

I would suggest talking to your professors about it, if you have not already...

Did you figure out what went wrong on your exams? Can you see yourself working at a law firm, now that you've seen some of what law is all about?

I think 167 LSAT means you are pretty sharp. That should mean you could do well on some of the other standardized tests... Maybe go for a ph.D?

How are you going to pass your next two years if you couldn't keep up with this year, even with the scholarship on the line? Next year your workload will be harder and you won't have the scholarship. You'll be looking at increasing debt and possibly higher stress than ever before...

If you can't figure out what went wrong and a way to fix it, then next semester is a fairly high risk bet, financially speaking.

I sent you a letter last week indicating that because of your second semester GPA being a 1.98, under {school}’s academic standing policy, you are on Academic Probation (even though your cumulative GPA is above a 2.0). This letter indicated that under the {school}academic standing policy, your placement on Academic Probation results in your losing your scholarship.

Given that you had enrolled for your summer classes without an awareness that you no longer would have your {name} Scholarship, we are going to respect your “reliance” interest and treat your summer tuition as having been covered by scholarship. This means you can finish your summer courses.

For the 2008-09 academic year, however, you will no longer have your {name}Scholarship, so you should consult with {name}about other financial aid for which you might be eligible.

If you want to meet to discuss this further, I would be happy to meet with you and answer any questions you might have

I'm shocked that they allow him to use "reliance" to keep the scholarship for the summer.I know of other schools that pretty explicitly say that if you lose your scholarship, but have already enrolled in summer courses, you owe them tuition.

I'm not sure they should consider his 'reliance' interest in determining that the original poster should keep his scholarship money for summer classes. His 'reliance' would have been the expectation that at least his 1st semester, 1L would have been paid for. It was. Following this he did not meet the condition that he maintain a 2.0 term GPA--so the scholarship money is gone. If the original poster was actually going to sue over this and proceed on some sort of contract theory--he would lose. It seems to me that his school's OFFER of a scholarship renews each semester. Since the poster can only ACCEPT the terms by performance (maintenance of a 2.0 or higher) then Restatement (2nd) Contracts 45 would control. Here the school is the offeror, and they are released from their duty to perform (pay his tuition) because the poster (offeree) did not complete performance within the terms of the schools offer. Restatement 90 won't work for him. It seems difficult that his reliance on scholarship money for summer classes would be 'justifiable' considering that he was aware of the need to maintain the 2.0.

I'm not sure they should consider his 'reliance' interest in determining that the original poster should keep his scholarship money for summer classes. His 'reliance' would have been the expectation that at least his 1st semester, 1L would have been paid for. It was. Following this he did not meet the condition that he maintain a 2.0 term GPA--so the scholarship money is gone. If the original poster was actually going to sue over this and proceed on some sort of contract theory--he would lose. It seems to me that his school's OFFER of a scholarship renews each semester. Since the poster can only ACCEPT the terms by performance (maintenance of a 2.0 or higher) then Restatement (2nd) Contracts 45 would control. Here the school is the offeror, and they are released from their duty to perform (pay his tuition) because the poster (offeree) did not complete performance within the terms of the schools offer. Restatement 90 won't work for him. It seems difficult that his reliance on scholarship money for summer classes would be 'justifiable' considering that he was aware of the need to maintain the 2.0.

it doesn't matter if its whithin the contact-if the policy of the school is to be nicer than they have to be under the contract-then thats the policy of the school.

I wouldn't let that letter be a detriment. They offered you the chance to talk to them. Take them up on it. Fight for your scholarship and then decide if it's worth staying.

That said, That should mean you could do well on some of the other standardized tests... Maybe go for a ph.D? is the WORST advice in this thread...maybe even on this board. What about the OP tells you that he can succeed in a PHD program? His undergrad GPA sucked and his law school GPA sucks. His LSAT is no indicator of ability for academia. He already made the mistake of going to law school by default, why encourage him to make another bad decision? A PHD is usually, what, a 7 year commitment that costs money. If he needs time to figure out his life after dropping out of law school, he should be a short order cook or something that doesn't cost him anything. Argh, I'm way too aggravated about that nonchalant and stupid advice.